Special Section on Scaling and Measurement

Note from Section Editor James Comer: Professor Churchill has long been acknowledged as
one of the pioneers of measurement research in sales management. His willingness to initiate
this section with a portrayal of the key measurement issues is much appreciated. Thank you
Gil.
Manuscript Submissions: The reader who wishes to have a manuscript reviewed for possible
publication in this section should examine page ix of the Fall 1991 issue of the Journal of Per-
sonal Selling and Sales Management for details on section objectives andl guidelines or you can
send for guidelines to: Professor James M. Comer, University of Cincinnati, College of Business
Administration, Department of Marketing, Linder Hall (#145), Cincinnati, Ohio 45221.

Better M:easurement Practices are Critical to Better

Und1erstanding of Sales ManagemeJnt Issues
Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr.

The study of personal selling and sales management shares a characteristic

common to other areas of scientific inquiry. If knowledge and understanding of
its phenomena are to advance, then its measurement tools must also. This
article overviews the conceptual foundations of measurement in terms of how
they apply to sales research. It reviews the notions of reliability and validity and
the types of evidence they provide regarding the quality of measures. It also
offers suggestions on how sales researchers should proceed when working with
new or borrowed measures.

The new section on "Scaling and Measurement"
is a welcome addition to the Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, in that the study of
personal selling and sales management shares a
characteristic common to other areas of scientific
inquiry. If knowledge and understanding of its
phenomena are to advance, then its measurement
tools must also. 'I'he two go hand-in-hand. One
only has to think of the value of the telescope to
astronomy and the microscope to biology and chem-
istry to appreciate the relationship between knowl-
edge development and good measurement. As
Torgerson suggested more than thirty years ago:
Gilbert A. Churchill, .Jrr., is the Arthur C. Nielsen, Jr., Chair of
Marketing Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Univer-
sity ofWisconsin-Madison, 1155 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI
53706.
The various scientifie disciplines differ from one
another in a variety of ways ... One such [way] ...
is according to the degree to wlrich theoretical
procedures or explanations are used as con-
trasted with correlational procedures or expla-
nations ... The distinction here is between a sci-
ence that consists largely of statements describ-
ing the degree of relationship among more or
less directly observable variables and a science
that attempts (succe~ssfully) to derive, account
for, or explain these r~lationships from principles
that are not immediately given, but lie beyond
straight empirical knowledge. Although no sci-
ence is all correlational or entirely theoretical in
this sense, .. .it is clear that sciences do differ in
the degree to which they rely on one or the other
level of explanation. It may be also noted that
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Man.agement,
Volume :XU, Number 2 (Spring 1992).
74 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Figure 1 tion may take the form of an equation that pre-

Schematic Diagram Illustrating the Structure of cisely expresses the interrelationship of the con-
Science and the Problem of Measurement struct to the other constructs, such as the equation
in mechanics that suggests that force equals mass
time acceleration. Alternatively, the relationship
may be only imprecisely stated, which is typically
the case in the social sciences.
The double lines represent operational definitions.
An operational definition describes how the con-
Observable struct is to be measured. It specifies the activities
Data that the researcher must complete in order to assign
a value to the construct (e.g., sum the scores on the
ten individual statements to generate a total score).
In essence, the operational definition tells the in-
vestigator what to do and in what manner to mea-
sure the concept. Conceptual definitions logically
precede operational definitions and guide their de-
all sciences begin as largely correlational, and velopment, for we must specify what a construct is
progress toward the theoretical. In this sense, before we can develop rules for assessing its magni-
we might say that the social sciences are largely tude. When scientists test scientific propositions,
correlational, as are most of biology and psy- they are in essence testing their conjectures about
chology, though possibly less so. Physics and the relationships among the C's in the diagram.
chemistry would be examples standing at the They carry out these tests by assessing the strength,
other extreme.
direction, and form of the relationships between
It is more than a mere coincidence that the sci- the observable variables. Suppose an observed re-
ences would order themselves in largely the same lationship is inconsistent with the relationship that
way if they were classified on the basis of the
has been hypothesized or that there is no relation-
degree to which satisfactory measurement of
their important variables has been achieved. ship at all among the observable variables. Is the
(Torgerson, 1958, pp. 1-2, emphasis added) conceptual structure or theory wrong or are the
measures at fault? It is difficult to say. It depends
The situation in sales management parallels that on the confidence scientists have in the measures
in the social sciences in general. The studies are used to assess the relationships.
largely correlational. Moreover, very little attention Technically, measurement is nothing more than
can be devoted to assessing the functional form "rules for assigning numbers to objects to represent
relating variables because the measurement of the quantities of attributes." The rigor with which these
discipline's most important variables has not been rules are defined and the skill with which they are
achieved. implemented determine whether the construct has
been captured by the measure.
Nature and Importance of You would undoubtedly scoff at the following
Measurement measurement procedure: John has blue eyes and
Bill has brown eyes; therefore, John is taller than
The essential nature of the measurement task is Bill. You might reply that the color of a person's
captured in Figure 1. The basic researcher or sci- eyes has nothing to do with the person's height and,
entist uses theories in an attempt to explain phe- further, that if you wanted to see who was taller,
nomena. These theories or models consist of con- the best procedure would be to measure them with
structs (denoted by the circles with C's in them), a yardstick or to stand them side by side and com-
linkages among and between the constructs (single pare their heights. You would be right on both
lines connecting the C's), and data that connect the counts. Ifi measured both John and Bill by asking
constructs with the empirical world (double lines). them how tall they were, you would have probably
The single lines represent conceptual or constitu- voiced less objection to my procedure-unless John
tive definitions in that a given construct is defined said he was taller while your observation of the two
in terms of other constructs in the set. The defini- men showed that Bill was definitely the taller.

t n,; . #t AIM. 14 IAULMd .q&I_I,ZJ4dMP.i g J d

'"" """\1"'"' 1%if!I!.HMM iii\MMMM21UU&P lt.M1# ,5$14&QIA .. JQh#IA&M4 r M a ,;q 1\kMt&q 4 I t 44Jilk , A b.WR Mh @,
Spring1992
Now the interesting thing about most psychologi-
cal constructs is that we cannot rely on visual com-
parisons to either confirm or refute a measure. We
cannot see a salesp1erson's attitude, a rep's person-
ality characteristic, a salesperson's knowledge about
a particular product, or other psychological charac-
teristics such as intelligence, mental anxiety, or
whatever. These characteristics are all part of the
representative's black box. Their magnitude must
be inferred from our measurements. Since we can-
not resort to a visual check on the accuracy of our
measures, we must rely on evaluating the proce-
dures used to determine the measure. Eye color is
certainly not height, but can we capture sales rep-
resentatives' satisfaction with their job if we
ask them directly how satisfied they are? Probably
not, for reasons that will become obvious as we
continue our discussion. The ability to conclude
that a salesperson's job satisfaction or any other
characteristic of the person has indeed been cap-
tured by the measurement depends on understand-
ing measurement error and its assessment using
evidence of the reliability and validity of the mea-
sure.
Classification and Assessment
of Error
The ideal in measurement is to generate a score
that reflects true differences in the characteristic
one is attempting to measure and nothing else.
What we in fact obtain, though, is something else.
A measurement, calli it X0 , for what is observed can
be written as a function of several components:
Xo=Xr+Xs+XR
where
Xr represents the true score of the character-
istic being measured;
X8 represents systematic error; and
XR represents random error.
The total error of a measurement is given by the
sum ofXg and~ and it is important to note that it
has two components. Systematic error is also known
as constant error, because it affects the measure-
ment in a constant way. An example would be the
measurement of a man's height with a poorly cali-
brated wooden yardstick. Random error is not
constant error but, rather, is due to transient as-
pects of the person or measurement situation. A
random error manifests itself in the lack of consis-
75
tency of repeated or equivalent measurements when
the measurements are made on the same object or
person. An example would be the use of an elastic
ruler to measure a man's height. It is unlikely that
on two successive measurements the observer would
stretch the elastic ruler to the same degree of taut-
ness, and, therefore, the two measures would not
agree although the man's height had not changed.
The distinction between systematic error and
random error is critical because of the way the va-
lidity of measures is assessed. Validity is synony-
mous with accuracy or correctness. The validity of
a measuring instrument is defined as "the extent to
which differences in scores on it reflect true differ-
ences among individuals on the characteristic we
seek to measure, rather than constant or random
errors" (Selltiz, Wrightsman, and Cook 1976, p. 169).
When a measurement is valid, X0 =Xr, since there
is no error.
The basic measurement problem is to develop
measures in which the score we observe and record
actually represents the true score of the object on
the characteristic we are attempting to measure.
This is much harder to do than to say. It is not
accomplished by simply making up a set of ques-
tions or statements to measure a salesperson's job
satisfaction. Rather, the burden is on the researcher
to establish that the measure accurately captures
the characteristic of interest. The relationship be-
tween measured score and true score is never es-
tablished unequivocally but is always inferred. The
bases for such inferenees are two: (1) direct as-
sessment employing validity measures and (2) in-
direct assessment via reliability measures (Peter
and Churchill 1986). Let us consider each of these
sources of evidence in turn.
Validity Measures
As mentioned, a measuring instrument is valid to
the extent that differences in scores among objects
reflect the objects' true differences on the charac-
teristic that the instrument tries to measure. We
normally do not know the true score of an object
with respect to a given characteristic. If we did
know it, there wouldl be no need to measure the
object on that characteristic. What we do, therefore,
is infer the validity of the measure by looking for
evidence of its predictive, content, and construct
validity.
 76
Predictive Validity
The predictive approach to validation focuses on
the usefulness of the measuring instrument as a
predictor of some other characteristic or behavior of
the individual; it is thus sometimes called crite-
rion-related validity. Predictive validity is ascer-
tained by how well the measure predicts the crite-
rion, be it another characteristic or a specific be-
havior. An example would be the Graduate Man-
agement Admissions Test. The fact that this test is
required by most of the major schools of business
attests to its predictive validity; it has proven to be
useful in predicting how well a student with a par-
ticular score on the exam will do in an accredited
MBA program. The test score is used to predict the
criterion of performance. An example of an attitude
scale might be using scores that sales representa-
tives achieved on an instrument designed to assess
their job satisfaction to predict who might quit.
The attitude score would again be used to predict a
behavior-the likelihood of quitting. Predictive
validity is determined strictly by the correlation
between the two measures; if the correlation is high,
the measure is said to have predictive validity.
Predictive validity is relatively easy to assess. It
requires, to be sure, a reasonably valid measure of
the criterion with which the scores on the measur-
ing instrument are to be compared. Given that
such scores are available (for example, the grades
the student actually achieves in an MBA program,
the sales representative's quitting or not), all that
the researcher needs to do is to establish the degree
of relationship, usually in the form of some kind of
correlation coefficient, between the scores on the
measuring instrument and the criterion variable.
Although easy to assess, predictive validity is rarely
the most important kind of validity. We are often
concerned with "what the measure in fact measures"
rather than simply whether it predicts accurately
or not.
Content Validity
Content validity focuses on the adequacy with
which the domain of the characteristic is captured
by the measure. Consider, for example, the char-
acteristic "spelling ability" and suppose that the
following list of words was used to assess an
individual's spelling ability: quarterback, guard,
tackle, end, pass, fumble, punt, touchdown, ru~.
Now, you would probably take issue with this
'h4!llhtil1i&l,iiiW$RYA&;ibMbM .Jt04Zii%t ., AMMZ.S&MQ&?IJIAIM MM
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
spelling test. Further, the basis for your objection
probably would be the fact that all the words relate
to the sport of football. Therefore, you could argue
that an individual who is basically a very poor speller
could do well on this test simply because he or she
is a football enthusiast. You would be right, of
course. A person with a basic capacity for spelling
but with little interest in football might, in fact, do
worse on this spelling test than one with less native
ability but a good deal more interest in football.
The test could be said to lack content validity, since
it does not properly sample the domain of all possible
words that could be used but is very selective in its
emphasis.
The preceding example illustrates how content
validity is assessed, although not how it is estab-
lished. Content validity is sometimes known as
"face validity" because it is assessed by examining
the measure with an eye toward ascertaining the
domain being sampled. If the included domain is
decidedly different from the domain of the variable
as conceived, the measure is said to lack content
validity. Theoretically, to capture a person's spell-
ing ability, we should ask the person to spell all the
words in the language. The person who spelled the
greatest number of words correctly would be said to
have the most spelling ability. This is a completely
unrealistic procedure. It would take several life-
times to complete. We, therefore, resort to sampling
the domain of the characteristic by constructing
spelling tests that consist of samples of all the pos-
sible words that could be used. Different samplings
of items can produce different comparative perfor-
mances by individuals, and consequently whether
a particular test assesses "true" spelling ability de-
pends on how well the test samples the domain of
the characteristic. This is not only true for spelling
ability, but also holds for psychological character-
istics in which we have an interest.
How can we ensure that a measure will possess
content validity? We can never guarantee it because
it is partly a matter of judgement. We may feel
quite comfortable with the items included in a
measure, for example, while a critic may argue that
we have failed to sample from some relevant domain
of the characteristic. Although we can never guar-
antee the content validity of a measure, we can
severely diminish the objections of the critics. The
key to content validity lies in evaluating the proce-
dures that are used to develop the instrument
(Churchill1979).
"""""' UL,QJXid UU!4U:: ; t4 a, ; . tt!M 4. MBM4Mhk iiutt; 4t fl ZS rb+MW
AMI
Spring 1992
Figure 2
Diagram Rela1ting the Constructs "Job
Satisfaction" and "Intention to Quit"
X with respect to other constructs to which it is theo-
y representative's job satisfaction. Now, the construct
Construct Validity
Construct validity is most directly concerned with
the question of what the instrument is, in fact,
measuring. 'What eonstruct, concept, or trait un-
derlies the performance or score achieved on that
test? Does the measure of attitude measure atti-
tude or some other underlying characteristic of the
individual that affects his or her score? Construct
validity lies at the very heart of scientific progress.
Scientists need constructs with which to communi-
cate. So do you and I. Thus, in sales management
we speak of salespeople's motivation, their person-
alities, their attitudes, and so on. These are all
constructs that we use as we try to explain their
behaviors. And although vital, they are also
unobservable. We ean observe behavior related to
these constructs, but we cannot observe the con-
structs themselves. Rather, we operationally de-
fine the constructs in terms of a set of"observables."
When we agree on the operational definitions, pre-
cision in communication is advanced. Instead of
saying that what is measured by 25 items on a scale
is the salesperson's role ambiguity, we can speak of
the notion of role ambiguity.
While the measurement of constructs is vital to
scientific progress, construct validity is the most
difficult type of validity to establish. We need to
ensure, through the plans and procedures used in
developing the instrument, that we have adequately
sampled the domain of the construct and that there
is internal consistency among the items of the do-
main. We also need to assess whether the measure
behaves as expected. That means it should correlate
with or behave similarly to other measures designed
77
to get at the same thing. Technically, this means it
should have convergent validity. It should also
have discriminant vallidity which means it should
not correlate too highly with measures designed to
assess different things (Campbell and Fiske 1959).
Finally, the construct should behave as expected
retically related which technically means it should
display nomological validity (Peter 1981).
For example, consider Figure 2 which depicts
the relationship between the constructs "job satis-
faction" and "intention to quit" and suppose that we
had developed the measure X to assess a sales
validity of the measure could be assessed by ascer-
taining the relationship between job satisfaction as
measured by X and intention to quit as measured
by Y. Those individuals for whom the X-scores are
low, indicating less job satisfaction, should express
higher likelihood of quitting than those with high
X-scores. If they do not, one would question the
construct validity of the job satisfaction measure.
In other words, the construct validity of a measure
is assessed by whether the measure confirms or
denies the hypotheses predicted from the theory
based on the constructs. Is the evidence consistent
with the hypothesized linkages among the con-
structs as captured in a model like Figure 2?
Note though there is a circular logic in the argu-
ment. The argument rests on four separate propo-
sitions:
1. The constructs job satisfaction and inten-
tion to quit are negatively related.
2. The scale X provides a measure of job satis-
faction.
3. The scale Y provides a measure of intention
to quit.
4. X and Y correlate negatively .
Only the fourth proposition is directly examined
with empirical data. To establish that X measures
job satisfaction, one must assume that propositions
1 and 3 are correct in addition to observing that X
andY correlate negatively. Thus, one must have a
good measure for intention to quit and the theory
relating job satisfaction and intention to quit must
be true. In sum, the fallacy in the argument is that
the failure to observe the hypothesized relationship
may be due to a lack of construct validity or incorrect
theory. We often try to establish the construct
validity of a measure, therefore, lby relating it to a
number of other constn1cts rather than simply one,
and we also try to use those theories and hypoth-
78
eses that are sufficiently well founded to inspire
confidence in their probable correctness.
Reliability Measures
The similarity of results provided by independent
but comparable measures of the same object, trait,
or construct is called reliability. It is distinguished
from validity in that validity is represented in the
agreement between two attempts to measure the
same trait through maximally different methods,
whereas reliability is the agreement between two
efforts to measure the same trait through maxi-
mally similar methods (Campbell and Fiske 1959,
p. 83). If a measure was valid, there would be little
need to worry about its reliability. If a measure is
valid, it reflects the characteristic that it is sup-
posed to measure and is not distorted by other fac-
tors, either systematic or transitory.
Evaluating the reliability of any measuring in-
strument consists of determining how much of the
variation in scores is due to inconsistencies in
measurement (Peter 1979). Before discussing how
this evidence is generated, one point needs empha-
sis. Reliability involves determining the consis-
tency of independent or comparable measures of
the same object, group, or situation. To the extent
that a measure is reliable, it is not influenced by
transitory factors. In other words, the more reliable
the measure, the lower is XR in the equation for
observed scores. Note what this implies. A mea-
sure could be reliable and still not be valid, since
x x
even ifXR equals zero, 0 =~ + 8 . The converse
x
is, of course, not true. If the measure is valid, 0 =
~. because the measure is simply reflecting true
scores without error. Thus, it is often said that (1)
if a measure is valid, it is reliable; (2) if it is not
reliable, it cannot be valid, since at a very minimum
Xo =~ + XR; and (3) if it is reliable, then it may or
may not be valid, because reliability does not account
for systematic error. In other words, although lack
of reliability provides negative evidence of the va-
lidity of a measure, the mere presence of reliability
does not mean that the measure is valid. Reliabil-
ity is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for
validity. Reliability is more easily measured than
validity, though, and this accounts for the emphasis
on it over the years. The empirical evidence indi-
cates that reliability is the most frequently investi-
gated measurement property (Churchill and Peter
1984).
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Stability
One of the more popular ways of establishing the
reliability of a measure is to measure the same
objects or individuals at two different points in time
and to correlate the obtained scores. Assuming
that the objects or individuals have not changed in
the interim, the two scores should correlate per-
fectly. To the extent that they do not, random
disturbances were operating in either one or both of
the test situations to produce random error in the
measurement. The procedure is known as test-
retest reliability assessment.
Equivalence
The basic assumption in constructing an attitude
scale, say, is that when several items are summed
into a single attitude score, the items are measuring
the same underlying attitude. Each item can, in
one sense, be considered a measure of the attitude,
and the items should be consistent (or equivalent)
in what they indicate about the attitude. Within a
given scale, then, the equivalence measure of reli-
ability focuses on the internal consistency or inter-
nal homogeneity of the set of items forming the
scale.
The earliest measure of the internal consistency
of a set of items was the split-half reliability of the
scale. In assessing split-half reliability, the total
set of items is divided into two equivalent halves;
the total scores for the two halves are correlated,
and this is taken as the measure of reliability of the
instrument. Sometimes the division of items is
made randomly, whereas at other times the even
items are assumed to form one-half and the odd the
other half of the instrument. The total score on the
even items is then correlated with the total score
obtained from the odd items.
The necessarily arbitrary division of the items
into equivalent halves produces an inherent weak-
ness in split-half reliability. Each of the many
possible divisions can produce different correlations
between the two forms or different reliabilities.
Which division is correct or, alternatively, what is
then the reliability of the instrument? For example,
a ten-item scale has 126 possible splits or 126 pos-
sible reliability coefficients (Bohrnstedt 1970, p. 86).
A more appropriate way to assess the internal
homogeneity of a set of items is to look at all of the
items simultaneously, using coefficient alpha. One
Spring 1992
reason is that coeffilcient alpha has a direct rela-
tionship to the most accepted and conceptually ap-
pealing measurement model, the domain sampling
model, which holds that the purpose of any par-
ticular measurement is to estimate the score that
would be obtained if all the items in the domain were
employed (Nunnally 1978, p. 194). The score that
any subject would obtain over the whole sample
domain is the person's true score Xfr
In practice, though, we do not use all of the items
that could be used but rather only a sample of them.
To the extent that the sample of items correlates
with true scores, it is good. According to the domain
sampling model then, a primary source of mea-
surement error is the inadequate sampling of the
domain of relevant items.
Basic to the domain sampling model is the concept
of a very large correlation matrix showing all cor-
relations among the items in the domain. No single
item is likely to provide a perfect representation of
the concept just as no single word can be used to
test for differences in subjects' spelling abilities and
no single question c:an measure a person's intelli-
gence. Rather, each item can be expected to have a
certain amount of distinctiveness or specificity even
though it relates to the concept.
The average correlation in this large matrix in-
dicates the extent to which some common core exists
in the items. The dispersion of correlations about
the average indicates the extent to which items
vary in sharing the common core. The key assump-
tion in the domain sampling model is that all items,
if they belong to the domain of the concept, have an
equal amount of common core. This implies that
the average correlation in each column of the hy-
pothetical matrix is the same and, in turn, equals
the average correlation in the whole matrix. That
is, if all the items in a measure are drawn from the
domain of a single construct, responses to those
items should be internally consistent or highly cor-
related. Low inter-item correlations, on the other
hand, indicate that some items are not drawn from
the appropriate domain and are producing error
and unreliability. Coefficient alpha provides a
summary measure of the internal homogeneity that
exists among a set of items. Moreover, its square
root equals the estimated correlation of the test with
true scores (Nunnally 1978, p. 214). Thus, it is, or
should be, routinely calculated.
79
using the Eviderwe
A logical question is how does the
nonmeasurement expert use the above information
to make judgments. The researcher's burden is
different depending on whether the measure is a
new one or one borrowed from another study.
New Measure
If the measure is new, then the burden on the
researcher is to demonstrate to the scientific and
practitioner communiti,es that the measure has de-
sirable reliability and validity properties. One way
to do this is to follow a generally accepted paradigm
when developing the measure including: (1) defin-
ing the construct and specifying its domain, (2)
generating items to sample the domain, (3) collect-
ing data and calculating the appropriate indexes by
which to assess the measure's reliability and validity
properties (Churchill1B79).
Borrowed Measures
When borrowing measures from other studies,
the researcher needs to at least look at the reliability
and validity evidence that has been gathered in
support of the measure. The researcher also needs
to weigh carefully that evidence. Many researchers
borrow scales and simply assume that because the
measure had attractive properties in other contexts
that it can be used as i:s. They fail to realize that
scales developed in other situations may not display
the same desirable properties in the new context.
For example, scales developed in other disciplines
or in classroom-like situations with student subjects
may not translate welll at all to corporate survey
environments involving salespeople. When they
borrow scales, researchers need to check their
properties by calculating the appropriate reliabil-
ity and validity coefficients. Only by doing so can
they avoid executing GIGO (garbage in, garbage
out) routines and determine whether the conceptual
structures relating the eonstructs make sense given
the empirical evidence . The new section on mea-
surement can only help in improving our under-
standing of the measures with which sales man-
agement practitioners and researchers work.
80
References
Bohrnstedt, George W. (1970), "Reliability and Validity Assess-
ment in Attitude Measurement," in Attitude Measurement,
Gene F. Summers, eds., Chicago: Rand McNally.
Campbell, Donald T. and Donald W. Fiske (1959), "Convergent
and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod
Matrix," Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Churchill, Jr., Gilbert A. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing
Better Measures of Marketing Constructs," Journal of
Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.
- - - - - and J. Paul Peter (1984), "Research Design Ef-
fects on the Reliability of Rating Scales: A Meta-Analysis,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (February), 360-375.
Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., New
York: McGraw-Hill.
A qJM;;' ,.,;;;AiM II JZU t CJ 1M At&.$ ,$ . t l, 4fti.l$AJI& .A$ UiftA
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Peter, J. Paul (1979), "Reliability: A Review of Psychometric
Basics and Recent Marketing Practices," Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 16 (February), 6-17.
- - - - - (1981), "Construct Validity: A Review of Basic
Issues and Marketing Practices," Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 18 (May), 133-145.
- - - - - and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1986), "The Rela-
tionship Among Research Design Choices and Psychomet-
ric Properties of Rating Scales: A Meta-Analysis," Journal
of Marketing Research, 23 (February), 1-10.
Selltiz, Claire, Lawrence L. Wrightsman, and Stuart W. Cook
(1976), Research Methods in Social Relations, 3rd ed., New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Torgerson, WarrenS. (1958), Theory and Methods of Scaling,
New York: John Wiley.
i I ikt I(ZU!Mi Qi,U& t 04 bit, M..-AMM41MA14 RW,QMZP Att 5a us t i a
!